Rewati Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rewati Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on merits; petition dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, in case need arises; the period of pendency before this Court excluded from limitation, which runs from the day after this order; all pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition challenging the judgment dated 18.03.2024 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul — dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the judgment dated 15.03.2017 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul and acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 — should be allowed.

Ratio / Principle

None appeared for the petitioner on the last date of hearing or on the date of decision; it appears the petitioner is no more interested to pursue the present petition.

Key takeaways

The present petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.ratio¶15
The Registry shall not entertain any application for restoration to the main petition; however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, in case need arises.ratio¶15
The time for which the present petition is pending before this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation; the limitation will start from tomorrow and shall have to be explained.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rewati Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors., CRR-1351-2024, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Anoop Chitkara, J.), decision dated 02.04.2026 — Criminal revision petition challenging the judgment dated 18.03.2024 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment dated 15.03.2017 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul was dismissed and respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted in FIR No. 158 dated 24.04.2021, Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 435, 506 IPC. None appeared for the petitioner on the last date of hearing or on the date of decision, and the petitioner appeared no longer interested in pursuing the petition. Held, dismissing the petition for non-prosecution: (i) the Registry shall not entertain any application for restoration to the main petition; (ii) liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, in case need arises; (iii) the time for which the petition remained pending before this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation, which shall start from the following day and any delay shall have to be explained; (iv) all pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. The merits of the acquittal challenge were not adjudicated.

CRR-1351-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

211 CRR-1351-2024 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026

REWATI DEVI ......... Pe��oner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS ......... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present None for the pe��oner.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta0on		Sec0ons
158	24.04.2021	City Narnaul,	District	148, 149, 323, 325, 435, 506
		Mahendergarh		IPC

The present pe��on has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby the appeal preferred by the pe��oner against the judgment dated 15.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narnaul, was dismissed and respondents No. 2 to 4 were acqui=ed in the aforesaid FIR.

On the last date of hearing, none had appeared on behalf of the pe��oner. Even today, none has appeared on her behalf. It appears the pe��oner is no more interested to pursue the present pe��on.

Given above, the present pe��on stands dismissed for non-prosecu�on. It is clarified that the Registry shall not entertain any applica�on for restora�on to the main pe��on. However, liberty is reserved to the pe��oner to file a fresh pe��on, in case need arises. It is further clarified that the �me for which the present pe��on is pending before this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of limita�on and the limita�on will start from tomorrow, which shall have to be explained. All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

02.04.2026

Jyo�-II

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

JYOTI 2026.04.06 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.